相关题目
An Airbus A320-200 was being refueled at an aerodrome in England. After the refueling was completed, the refueling vehicle was driven away. But the refueling hose was not disconnected from the airplane. The refueling hose was torn out of the aircraft and dragged along the ground to the vehicle parking lot. Then the problem was finally discovered. The airplane was taken out of service for repairs to its refueling adapter ring and was returned to service the next day. An investigation by the refueling organization showed that the refueler had not complied with the vehicle’s checklist or with the refueling organization’s operations manual. Both the checklist and the manual required that he make sure all hoses were secure on the refueling vehicle before driving the vehicle away from an aircraft. Examination of the refueling vehicle showed a bent actuating rod on the vehicle’s refueling nozzle. This defect existed prior to this incident, and caused the nozzle detection system not to function. When working properly, the detection system prevents the vehicle’s engine from being started unless all nozzles are stowed correctly. This interlock system had been damaged sometime in the recent past. It was checked about ten days prior to the accident and was found to function properly. The refueler stated that his normal routine had been interrupted by a paperwork problem. As a result, he was distracted by filling out the paperwork, and then drove away, believing he had disconnected the refueling hoses and nozzle even though he had not really done so. The company repaired the refueling vehicle and agreed to further training for the driver. 4. Why did the nozzle detection system fail?
An Airbus A320-200 was being refueled at an aerodrome in England. After the refueling was completed, the refueling vehicle was driven away. But the refueling hose was not disconnected from the airplane. The refueling hose was torn out of the aircraft and dragged along the ground to the vehicle parking lot. Then the problem was finally discovered. The airplane was taken out of service for repairs to its refueling adapter ring and was returned to service the next day. An investigation by the refueling organization showed that the refueler had not complied with the vehicle’s checklist or with the refueling organization’s operations manual. Both the checklist and the manual required that he make sure all hoses were secure on the refueling vehicle before driving the vehicle away from an aircraft. Examination of the refueling vehicle showed a bent actuating rod on the vehicle’s refueling nozzle. This defect existed prior to this incident, and caused the nozzle detection system not to function. When working properly, the detection system prevents the vehicle’s engine from being started unless all nozzles are stowed correctly. This interlock system had been damaged sometime in the recent past. It was checked about ten days prior to the accident and was found to function properly. The refueler stated that his normal routine had been interrupted by a paperwork problem. As a result, he was distracted by filling out the paperwork, and then drove away, believing he had disconnected the refueling hoses and nozzle even though he had not really done so. The company repaired the refueling vehicle and agreed to further training for the driver. 3. Who should be responsible for the accident?
An Airbus A320-200 was being refueled at an aerodrome in England. After the refueling was completed, the refueling vehicle was driven away. But the refueling hose was not disconnected from the airplane. The refueling hose was torn out of the aircraft and dragged along the ground to the vehicle parking lot. Then the problem was finally discovered. The airplane was taken out of service for repairs to its refueling adapter ring and was returned to service the next day. An investigation by the refueling organization showed that the refueler had not complied with the vehicle’s checklist or with the refueling organization’s operations manual. Both the checklist and the manual required that he make sure all hoses were secure on the refueling vehicle before driving the vehicle away from an aircraft. Examination of the refueling vehicle showed a bent actuating rod on the vehicle’s refueling nozzle. This defect existed prior to this incident, and caused the nozzle detection system not to function. When working properly, the detection system prevents the vehicle’s engine from being started unless all nozzles are stowed correctly. This interlock system had been damaged sometime in the recent past. It was checked about ten days prior to the accident and was found to function properly. The refueler stated that his normal routine had been interrupted by a paperwork problem. As a result, he was distracted by filling out the paperwork, and then drove away, believing he had disconnected the refueling hoses and nozzle even though he had not really done so. The company repaired the refueling vehicle and agreed to further training for the driver. 2. Which part of the A320-200 was damaged by the refueling truck?
An Airbus A320-200 was being refueled at an aerodrome in England. After the refueling was completed, the refueling vehicle was driven away. But the refueling hose was not disconnected from the airplane. The refueling hose was torn out of the aircraft and dragged along the ground to the vehicle parking lot. Then the problem was finally discovered. The airplane was taken out of service for repairs to its refueling adapter ring and was returned to service the next day. An investigation by the refueling organization showed that the refueler had not complied with the vehicle’s checklist or with the refueling organization’s operations manual. Both the checklist and the manual required that he make sure all hoses were secure on the refueling vehicle before driving the vehicle away from an aircraft. Examination of the refueling vehicle showed a bent actuating rod on the vehicle’s refueling nozzle. This defect existed prior to this incident, and caused the nozzle detection system not to function. When working properly, the detection system prevents the vehicle’s engine from being started unless all nozzles are stowed correctly. This interlock system had been damaged sometime in the recent past. It was checked about ten days prior to the accident and was found to function properly. The refueler stated that his normal routine had been interrupted by a paperwork problem. As a result, he was distracted by filling out the paperwork, and then drove away, believing he had disconnected the refueling hoses and nozzle even though he had not really done so. The company repaired the refueling vehicle and agreed to further training for the driver. 1. What happed when the refueling vehicle was driven away?
The 747 was being operated on a scheduled passenger flight from Singapore to Frankfurt with four pilots, 14 cabin crew and 378 passengers. At the time of flight planning in Singapore, the terminal aerodrome forecast for Frankfurt indicated CAVOK conditions at the estimated time of arrival (ETA), and there was no requirement to plan for an alternate aerodrome. The fuel uplift at Singapore for the flight to Frankfurt was in accordance with the operators’ Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) of Australia-approved fuel policy. The 747 departed Singapore on 27 July at 1521. The ETA for Frankfurt was 0319 on 28 July. The 0220 Frankfurt routine aviation weather report obtained by the crew included information that CAVOK conditions existed, with no significant changes expected. The crew of the 747 commenced descent into Frankfurt at about 0300, and the Frankfurt automatic terminal information service provided the crew with information that CAVOK conditions existed. As the 747 approached position GED, which was 35 NM from Frankfurt, the air traffic controller instructed the crew to enter a holding pattern at GED. As the 747 was in the holding pattern, radio transmissions from the crews of other aircraft alerted the crew of the 747 that the weather conditions at Frankfurt had suddenly deteriorated, and that there were thunderstorms and heavy rain showers at the aerodrome. The crew elected to divert the 747 to Munich, where it landed without further incident. A number of other international flights were similarly affected. Because of the unexpected and unscheduled diversion from Frankfurt, the reserve fuel remaining on board the 747 when it arrived at Munich was less than that required by the operators CASA approved fuel policy for the planned flight. Note: CAVOK conditions are: Visibility 10 km or more; No cloud below 5,000 ft or below the highest minimum sector altitude, whichever is the greater, and no cumulonimbus; No precipitation, thunderstorm, shallow fog, low drifting snow or dust devils.5. What was the problem of 747?
The 747 was being operated on a scheduled passenger flight from Singapore to Frankfurt with four pilots, 14 cabin crew and 378 passengers. At the time of flight planning in Singapore, the terminal aerodrome forecast for Frankfurt indicated CAVOK conditions at the estimated time of arrival (ETA), and there was no requirement to plan for an alternate aerodrome. The fuel uplift at Singapore for the flight to Frankfurt was in accordance with the operators’ Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) of Australia-approved fuel policy. The 747 departed Singapore on 27 July at 1521. The ETA for Frankfurt was 0319 on 28 July. The 0220 Frankfurt routine aviation weather report obtained by the crew included information that CAVOK conditions existed, with no significant changes expected. The crew of the 747 commenced descent into Frankfurt at about 0300, and the Frankfurt automatic terminal information service provided the crew with information that CAVOK conditions existed. As the 747 approached position GED, which was 35 NM from Frankfurt, the air traffic controller instructed the crew to enter a holding pattern at GED. As the 747 was in the holding pattern, radio transmissions from the crews of other aircraft alerted the crew of the 747 that the weather conditions at Frankfurt had suddenly deteriorated, and that there were thunderstorms and heavy rain showers at the aerodrome. The crew elected to divert the 747 to Munich, where it landed without further incident. A number of other international flights were similarly affected. Because of the unexpected and unscheduled diversion from Frankfurt, the reserve fuel remaining on board the 747 when it arrived at Munich was less than that required by the operators CASA approved fuel policy for the planned flight. Note: CAVOK conditions are: Visibility 10 km or more; No cloud below 5,000 ft or below the highest minimum sector altitude, whichever is the greater, and no cumulonimbus; No precipitation, thunderstorm, shallow fog, low drifting snow or dust devils.4. What was the decision of crew when they were in the holding pattern?
The 747 was being operated on a scheduled passenger flight from Singapore to Frankfurt with four pilots, 14 cabin crew and 378 passengers. At the time of flight planning in Singapore, the terminal aerodrome forecast for Frankfurt indicated CAVOK conditions at the estimated time of arrival (ETA), and there was no requirement to plan for an alternate aerodrome. The fuel uplift at Singapore for the flight to Frankfurt was in accordance with the operators’ Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) of Australia-approved fuel policy. The 747 departed Singapore on 27 July at 1521. The ETA for Frankfurt was 0319 on 28 July. The 0220 Frankfurt routine aviation weather report obtained by the crew included information that CAVOK conditions existed, with no significant changes expected. The crew of the 747 commenced descent into Frankfurt at about 0300, and the Frankfurt automatic terminal information service provided the crew with information that CAVOK conditions existed. As the 747 approached position GED, which was 35 NM from Frankfurt, the air traffic controller instructed the crew to enter a holding pattern at GED. As the 747 was in the holding pattern, radio transmissions from the crews of other aircraft alerted the crew of the 747 that the weather conditions at Frankfurt had suddenly deteriorated, and that there were thunderstorms and heavy rain showers at the aerodrome. The crew elected to divert the 747 to Munich, where it landed without further incident. A number of other international flights were similarly affected. Because of the unexpected and unscheduled diversion from Frankfurt, the reserve fuel remaining on board the 747 when it arrived at Munich was less than that required by the operators CASA approved fuel policy for the planned flight. Note: CAVOK conditions are: Visibility 10 km or more; No cloud below 5,000 ft or below the highest minimum sector altitude, whichever is the greater, and no cumulonimbus; No precipitation, thunderstorm, shallow fog, low drifting snow or dust devils.3. How did the crew get the information that CAVOK condition existed in Frankfurt when the 747 commenced descent?
The 747 was being operated on a scheduled passenger flight from Singapore to Frankfurt with four pilots, 14 cabin crew and 378 passengers. At the time of flight planning in Singapore, the terminal aerodrome forecast for Frankfurt indicated CAVOK conditions at the estimated time of arrival (ETA), and there was no requirement to plan for an alternate aerodrome. The fuel uplift at Singapore for the flight to Frankfurt was in accordance with the operators’ Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) of Australia-approved fuel policy. The 747 departed Singapore on 27 July at 1521. The ETA for Frankfurt was 0319 on 28 July. The 0220 Frankfurt routine aviation weather report obtained by the crew included information that CAVOK conditions existed, with no significant changes expected. The crew of the 747 commenced descent into Frankfurt at about 0300, and the Frankfurt automatic terminal information service provided the crew with information that CAVOK conditions existed. As the 747 approached position GED, which was 35 NM from Frankfurt, the air traffic controller instructed the crew to enter a holding pattern at GED. As the 747 was in the holding pattern, radio transmissions from the crews of other aircraft alerted the crew of the 747 that the weather conditions at Frankfurt had suddenly deteriorated, and that there were thunderstorms and heavy rain showers at the aerodrome. The crew elected to divert the 747 to Munich, where it landed without further incident. A number of other international flights were similarly affected. Because of the unexpected and unscheduled diversion from Frankfurt, the reserve fuel remaining on board the 747 when it arrived at Munich was less than that required by the operators CASA approved fuel policy for the planned flight. Note: CAVOK conditions are: Visibility 10 km or more; No cloud below 5,000 ft or below the highest minimum sector altitude, whichever is the greater, and no cumulonimbus; No precipitation, thunderstorm, shallow fog, low drifting snow or dust devils.2. When did the B747 depart?
The 747 was being operated on a scheduled passenger flight from Singapore to Frankfurt with four pilots, 14 cabin crew and 378 passengers. At the time of flight planning in Singapore, the terminal aerodrome forecast for Frankfurt indicated CAVOK conditions at the estimated time of arrival (ETA), and there was no requirement to plan for an alternate aerodrome. The fuel uplift at Singapore for the flight to Frankfurt was in accordance with the operators’ Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) of Australia-approved fuel policy. The 747 departed Singapore on 27 July at 1521. The ETA for Frankfurt was 0319 on 28 July. The 0220 Frankfurt routine aviation weather report obtained by the crew included information that CAVOK conditions existed, with no significant changes expected. The crew of the 747 commenced descent into Frankfurt at about 0300, and the Frankfurt automatic terminal information service provided the crew with information that CAVOK conditions existed. As the 747 approached position GED, which was 35 NM from Frankfurt, the air traffic controller instructed the crew to enter a holding pattern at GED. As the 747 was in the holding pattern, radio transmissions from the crews of other aircraft alerted the crew of the 747 that the weather conditions at Frankfurt had suddenly deteriorated, and that there were thunderstorms and heavy rain showers at the aerodrome. The crew elected to divert the 747 to Munich, where it landed without further incident. A number of other international flights were similarly affected. Because of the unexpected and unscheduled diversion from Frankfurt, the reserve fuel remaining on board the 747 when it arrived at Munich was less than that required by the operators CASA approved fuel policy for the planned flight. Note: CAVOK conditions are: Visibility 10 km or more; No cloud below 5,000 ft or below the highest minimum sector altitude, whichever is the greater, and no cumulonimbus; No precipitation, thunderstorm, shallow fog, low drifting snow or dust devils.1. What was the weather condition like in Frankfurt at the time of flight planning in Singapore?
Frankfurt International Airport (IATA: FRA; ICAO: EDDF), known in German as Rhein-Main-Flughafen or Flughafen Frankfurt am Main, is located in Frankfurt am Main, Germany. It is the largest airport in Germany and the second or third-largest in Europe (depending on which data is used), serving as an important hub for international flights from around the world. Frankfurt International is a hub of Lufthansa, the German flag carrier. Frankfurt International currently serves more destinations than London＇s Heathrow International Airport, but in terms of passenger traffic Frankfurt International is third in Europe, behind London＇s Heathrow Airport and Paris＇s Charles de Gaulle Airport. Structure and function Frankfurt Airport has two passenger terminals, which are connected by corridors as well as by people-movers and buses. Terminal 1 opened on March 14th, 1972. It was designed in a modern style for the period, with shining interiors and steel walls. It is divided into three concourses. Terminal 2 then opened on October 24th, 1994. It is built to look like a classical railway station. It is divided into two concourses. Frankfurt also has two cargo terminals, North and South, as well as a separate General Aviation Terminal on the south side of the airport. Hub for Europe Frankfurt International Airport is very centrally located for flights to much of Europe. A direct flight to Paris takes only one hour and ten minutes. Zurich, Switzerland is only fifty-five minutes away. A direct flight to Warsaw, Poland requires one hour and thirty-five minutes; one to Rome, Italy one hour and fifty-five minutes. You can even fly all the way to Moscow in three hours. In addition, Frankfurt is a major railroad hub for travel all over Europe. Climate Most of Germany is classified as having a temperate and marine climate. There are cool, cloudy and wet winters and summers. There are occasional warm down-mountain winds. Frankfurt it quite a bit inland from the German North Sea coastline, and is thus a little more continental than the coast of Germany – with colder and drier winters and hotter and drier summers.5. Which of the following is true?
